DOCSLIB.ORG

Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: an Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: an Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1983 Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice Randy E. Barnett Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1556 Randy E. Barnett, Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice, 32 Emory L.J. 937 (1983). This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons Articles RESOLVING THE DILEMMA OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: AN APPLICATION OF RESTITUTIVE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE by Randy E. Barnett* CONTENTS I. Introduction ..................................... 937 A. The Need for An Alternative to the Exclusionary Rule .......... ........................ 941, B. The Alternative: Restitution To Victims of Police M isconduct .................................. 942 C. The Methodology of Comparing Deterrence .... 944 II. The Costs of Suppression ......................... 947 A. The Police .................................. 948 B. The Courts .................................. 959 C. The Prosecutor .............................. 966 III. The Restitutive Alternative ....................... 969 A. Effects of a Restitutive Remedy on the Costs of Police M isconduct ........................... 969 B. Features of A Restitutive System .............. 975 IV. Limiting the Proposal ............................ 980 V. Conclusion ...................................... 985 I. INTRODUCTION Discussions of the merits of the exclusionary rule usually begin and end with a dilemma not unlike the classic "prisoner's di- *Assistant Professor of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law. B.A. Northwestern University, 1974; J.D. Harvard Law School, 1977. For their con- structive comments on earlier versions of this paper, I wish to thank Albert Alschuler, Mary Becker, and Lewis Collens. I also wish to thank James Flynn, Alan Neff, and Karl Schutz for their most helpful research and editorial contributions. Finally, I wish to thank Julie Hamos for provoking me to develop the analysis that follows. 938 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 32 lemma."1 Suppression of illegally obtained, but reliable, evidence that leads to the release of a guilty defendant may constitute an injustice and a threat to the safety of innocent citizens. Admitting illegally obtained evidence, however, may encourage police officers to engage in illegal conduct to the detriment of countless numbers of citizens. The premise of the prisoner's dilemma is that the pris- oner's choices have been limited by his captor to two, each of which is morally objectionable. The debate over the merits of the exclusionary rule has a similar quality, but is this necessary? Are we really faced with only two choices: abolish or weaken the rule (and risk increased police misconduct) or keep the rule (and risk increased criminal conduct)? The ongoing discussion of the merits of the exclusionary rule is as old as the rule itself.2 It would be impossible to review it here.3 The exclusionary rule has been defended as a way to preserve judi- cial integrity or to prevent the government from profiting from its own misconduct. This paper will not consider claims that an exclu- sionary rule is constitutionally mandated for such reasons.4 Instead I The "prisoner's dilemma" is as follows: A is a prisoner of B. B orders A to kill C and informs him that, if he refuses, B will kill D, E, F, and G. What is the moral choice for A? Does he perform the acts that cause the death of innocent C? Or does he refuse with the knowledge that this refusal will result in the deaths of four other innocents? 2 The exclusionary rule is a court-created rule designed to uphold the fourth amend- ment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As early as 1886, the United States Supreme Court discussed the problems involved in admitting evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (decided on fourth and fifth amendment grounds). In 1914, it announced the exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), where it held that evidence obtained by federal officials in violation of the fourth amendment prohibition was inadmissible in federal crimi- nal trials. The Court extended the exclusionary rule to exclude from federal criminal trials evidence obtained by state officials in violation of the fourth amendment in Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960). The Court made the coverage of the criminal area complete when it held the exclusionary rule applicable to state authorities and state courts through the four- teenth amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 3 For a recent and illustrative round of the debate, see Symposium on the Exclusionary Rule, CRIM. JUST. ETHICS Summer/Fall 1982, at 3, and the sources cited therein. See also Wilkey, The Exclusionary Rule: Costs and Viable Alternatives, id. at 16. 4 See e.g., Kamisar, Does (Did) (Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a "Principled Basis" Rather than an "EmpiricalProposition"?, 16 CREIGHTON L. REv. 565 (1983); and Schlag, Assaults on the ExclusionaryRule: Good FaithLimitations, Damage Remedies and Congressional Power, 73 J. CRim. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 875 (1982). For a contrary constitu- 1983] THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE 939 it will focus on the question that still dominates academic and popular discussions of the exclusionary rule, viz., is it the best means of deterring illegal police conduct? The assumption that it is the best means remains the rationale of the Supreme Court.5 A remedy is needed that accomplishes the objectives of crime prevention and justice and that deters police misconduct as well as or better than the exclusionary rule. The growing support for a weakening of the exclusionary rule by the creation of a so-called "good faith exception" may make it a propitious time for those concerned with deterring police misconduct to pursue such an al- ternative vigorously. The remedy proposed here is restitution to tional analysis see, e.g., LaPrade, An Alternative to the Exclusionary Rule Presently Ad- ministered Under the Fourth Amendment, 48 CONN. BAR J. 100 (1974); Wilkey, Constitu- tional Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule, 23 S. Tax. L.J. 531 (1982). 5 See S. SCHLESINGER, EXCLUSIONARY INJUSTICE 47 (1977); Gilligan, The Federal Torts Claims Act - An Alternative to the ExclusionaryRule?, 66 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1, 1-7 (1975); Sunderland, Liberals, Conservatives, and the Exclusionary Rule, 71 J. CraM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 343, 344, 351-53 (1980); Wilkey, supra note 4, at 543. 6A good faith exception to the exclusionary rule has been suggested. Proponents claim that when officers act in "good faith" but their actions are in fact illegal, the exclusionary rule should not apply and the evidence should be held admissible. One federal court has adopted this exception. In United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 (1981), the Fifth Circuit held that the exclusionary rule does not apply under certain circumstances such as when an official acts in reasonable good faith in obtaining evidence, although his acts were violative of the fourth amendment. Proponents of the good faith exception claim that the exception should only apply to "technical" or "mild" constitutional violations. Williams, 622 F.2d at 843. Kamisar, a lead- ing opponent of this view, expressed discontent with such an approach: "How does one 'barely' or 'mildly' violate what is 'basic to a free society' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'? If police action that violates Due Process is not gross or aggravated police misconduct per se, then why is it a violation of Due Process?" Kamisar, A Defense of the Exclusionary Rule, 15 CraM. L. BULL. 5, 29 (1979) (emphasis in original). See contra Car- rington, Good Faith Mistakes and the Exclusionary Rule, Cium. JUST. ETHICS Summer/Fall 1982, at 35 (arguing for a good faith exception). More than twenty years ago, the Court expressed its fear of a good faith exception. In Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959), the Court noted that "good faith on the part of the arresting officers is not enough." In Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964), the Court explained its fear that using a subjective good faith test would evaporate the protec- tions of the fourth amendment, leaving the security of the people only in the discretion of the police. The Court expressly rejected a good faith exception in Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 693 (1982). Additionally, in Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2321 (1983), the Court declined to address the question of the good faith exception under the facts of the case. Nevertheless, the Court recently has granted certiorari in three cases which could involve EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 32 victims of police misconduct. Such a proposal is not new.7 To date, however, it has been defended principally as a means of remedying rights violations while avoiding the release of guilty defendants. Without disputing the merits of this argument, I intend to show that this alternative should also be preferred because it will deter police misconduct as well as, if not better than, the exclusionary rule. This article compares the deterrent effect of the exclusion of ille- gally obtained evidence with that of a proposed system of restitu- tion to victims of police misconduct. Part II identifies the costs imposed on the police by the remedy of excluding illegally ob- tained evidence and the costs that inhibit a court's use of such a remedy. Part III identifies additional ways in which a restitution remedy will increase the costs of police misconduct and specifies some features of a restitutive system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Reprinted for private circulation from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Vol. 37, No.4, Summer 1970 Copyright 1970 by the University of Chicago l'RINTED IN U .soA. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H. OakS;- The exclusionary rule makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitu­ tion, by statute or by court rules. The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause.1 The ex­ clusionary rule is the Supreme Court's sole technique for enforcing t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Executive Director-Designate, The American Bar Foundation. This study was financed by a three-month grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute fur­ nished financial support to this study does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions in this article_ Many individuals assisted the author in this study. Colleagues Hans Zeisel and Franklin Zimring gave valuable guidance on analysis, methodology and presentation. Colleagues Walter J.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Two Arguments Against the Exclusionary Rule: the Historical Error and the Comparative Myth, 32 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 32 | Issue 4 Article 4 Fall 9-1-1975 A Critique Of Two Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule: The iH storical Error And The Comparative Myth Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., A Critique Of Two Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule: The Historical Error And The Comparative Myth, 32 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 881 (1975), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol32/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Critique of Two Arguments Against the Exclusionary Rule: The Historical Error and The Comparative Myth DONALD E. WILKES, JR.* Introduction "The great body of the law of evidence consists of rules that oper- ate to exclude relevant evidence."' The most controversial of these rules are those which prevent the admission of probative evidence because of the irregular manner in which the evidence was obtained. Depending on whether the method of obtaining violated a provision of positive law, irregularly obtained evidence' may be separated into two classes. Evidence obtained by methods which meet legal requirements but contravene some moral or ethical principle is un- fairly obtained evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters
    Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 24, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41252 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters Summary The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that “No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court declared that statements of an accused, given during a custodial interrogation, could not be introduced in evidence in criminal proceedings against him, unless he were first advised of his rights and waived them. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court held that the Miranda exclusionary rule was constitutionally grounded and could not be replaced by a statutory provision making all voluntary confessions admissible. In New York v. Quarles, the Court recognized a “limited” “public safety” exception to Miranda, but has not defined the exception further. The lower federal courts have construed the exception narrowly in cases involving unwarned statements concerning the location of a weapon possibly at hand at the time of an arrest. The Supreme Court has yet to decide to what extent Miranda applies to custodial interrogations conducted overseas. The lower federal courts have held that the failure of foreign law enforcement officials to provide Miranda warnings prior to interrogation does not preclude use of any resulting statement in a subsequent U.S. criminal trial, unless interrogation was a joint venture of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test Seth Osnowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Seth Osnowitz, Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 273 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss1/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 1·2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Barker v. Wingo Test Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 273 I. Background and Policy of Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial .......................................................................... 275 A. History of Speedy Trial Jurisprudence ............................................ 276 B. Policy Considerations and the “Demand-Waiver Rule”..................... 279 II. The Barker Test and Defendants’ Assertion of the Right to a Speedy Trial .................................................................. 282 A. Rejection of the
    [Show full text]
  • The Unruly Exclusionary Rule
    Marquette Law Review Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall 1994 The nrU uly Exclusionary Rule: Heeding Justice Blackmun's Call to Examine the Rule in Light of Changing Judicial Understanding About Its Effects Outside the Courtroom Harry M. Caldwell Carol A. Chase Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Harry M. Caldwell and Carol A. Chase, The Unruly Exclusionary Rule: Heeding Justice Blackmun's Call to Examine the Rule in Light of Changing Judicial Understanding About Its Effects Outside the Courtroom, 78 Marq. L. Rev. 45 (1994). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol78/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNRULY EXCLUSIONARY RULE: HEEDING JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S CALL TO EXAMINE THE RULE IN LIGHT OF, CHANGING JUDICIAL UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ITS EFFECTS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM HARRY M. CALDWELL* CAROL A. CHASE** I. INTRODUCTION There is a war raging in the hearts and minds of most Americans over the efficacy of the American Criminal Justice system. Americans are concerned with rising crime and they sense that the criminal justice sys- tem is not adequately protecting them from crime or criminals. If pressed to identify a focal point of criticism of the justice system, many would name the Exclusionary Rule. The Rule is popularly believed to exclude even the most damning evidence for the slightest police error.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.4 Sources of Law
    1.4 Sources of Law Below is a brief summary of the sources of law for addressing racial disparities in North Carolina criminal cases. These sources are discussed in greater detail in the applicable chapters of this manual. Equal Protection. As long ago as 1891, the U.S Supreme Court recognized that under the Fourteenth Amendment, “no state can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.”91 The Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of numerous interpretations in the intervening years. As one scholar observed, however, it was “[n]ot until the last decade of the Warren Court,” when heightened scrutiny became law, “[that] the equal protection clause evolve[d] from a largely moribund constitutional provision to a potent egalitarian instrument.”92 Today, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is an important source of rights for defendants challenging unequal treatment in the criminal justice system. It may be relied on by defendants challenging practices such as selective policing based on race,93 selective prosecution based on race,94 discrimination in the pretrial release setting,95 racially biased jury selection procedures,96 racially biased grand jury foreperson selection procedures,97 race-based use of peremptory challenges,98 and considerations of race at sentencing.99 Due Process. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This right includes protections against racial bias in criminal cases. For example, the Due Process Clause is an important source of rights for defendants challenging an unreliably suggestive cross-racial identification.100 Fourth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Face to Face': Rediscovering the Right to Confront Prosecution Witnesses Richard D
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2004 Face to Face': Rediscovering the Right to Confront Prosecution Witnesses Richard D. Friedman University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/728 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Friedman, Richard D. "'Face to Face': Rediscovering the Right to Confront Prosecution Witnesses." Int'l J. Evidence & Proof 8, no. 1 (2004): 1-30. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 'Face to face': Rediscovering the right to confront prosecution witnesses By Richard D. Friedman* Ralph W.Aigler Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Abstract. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of an accused 'to confront the witnesses against him'. The United States Supreme Court has treated this Confrontation Clause as a broad but rather easily rebuttable rule against using hearsay on behalf of a criminal prosecution; with respect to most hearsay, the exclusionary rule is overcome if the court is persuaded that the statement is sufficiently reliable, and the court can reach that conclusion if the statement fits within a 'firmly rooted' hearsay exception.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Incorporating the Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Excessive Bail
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 4 Article 4 1-1-2015 The mplicI ations of Incorporating the Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Excessive Bail Scott .W Howe Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Howe, Scott .W (2015) "The mpI lications of Incorporating the Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Excessive Bail," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 43: Iss. 4, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol43/iss4/4 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Howe: The Implications of Incorporating the Eighth Amendment Prohibitio THE IMPLICATIONS OF INCORPORATING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE BAIL Scott W.Howe* I. INTRODUCTION The Eighth Amendment prohibition on "excessive bail"' is perhaps the least developed of the criminal clauses in the Bill of Rights.2 The reasons have nothing to do with a scarcity of complaints about excessive bail in the trial courts. At any given time, about 500,000 criminally accused persons languish in jail in the United States,4 and not only defense lawyers in individual cases, but legal scholars who have studied the broader spectrum of cases regularly contend that many of these detentions are unnecessary.' Yet, claims of excessive bail virtually never receive an airing in the Supreme Court,6 unlike claims, for example, about unreasonable police invasions of privacy, 7 improper police interrogations,8 or cruel and unusual punishments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Good Faith Exception to the Miranda Rule--A Critique, 35 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 35 | Issue 3 Article 1 1-1984 The meE rging Good Faith Exception to the Miranda Rule--A Critique Martin R. Gardner Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin R. Gardner, The Emerging Good Faith Exception to the Miranda Rule--A Critique, 35 Hastings L.J. 429 (1984). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol35/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Emerging Good Faith Exception to the Miranda Rule-A Critique By MARTiN R. GARDNER* Several Justices of the United States Supreme Court recently have espoused a "good faith" exception to the general rule in fourth amend- ment' cases requiring exclusion of evidence2 obtained in unconstitu- tional searches or seizures.3 The good faith exception would permit the use at trial of evidence obtained by government agents who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed they were conducting a legal search or seizure.4 Proponents of the exception argue that it would not contra- vene what they consider the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule- deterrence of governmental invasions of privacy 5-because good faith misconduct is not deterrable. 6 They believe that the rule is not man- dated by the Constitution, and may therefore be modified by the * Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusionary Rules in Nonjury Criminal Cases * A
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 119 MAY 1971 No. 6 THE EXCLUSIONARY RULES IN NONJURY CRIMINAL CASES * A. LEo LEvIN t AND HAEoA K. CoHEN tt It should occasion no surprise that the vast welter of doctrine which has become our law of evidence is not applied with equal rigor when a judge rather than a jury sits as trier of the fact.' At least two major policy considerations support the prevailing practice under which the exclusionary rules are applied with far less stringency if there is no jury. First, our law of evidence has long been viewed as a product of the jury system,' of the need to shelter untrained citizens from the temptation to accept uncritically that which may be unreliable and of * The authors acknowledge their indebtedness to Boaz M. Shattan, Jr., of the Class of 1972, University of Pennsylvania Law School, for his valuable research done in connection with a seminar paper on a related subject. t Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania. B.A. 1939, Yeshiva University; J.D. 1942, University of Pennsylvania; LL.D. 1960, Yeshiva University. Member, New York Bar. "'B.S. (Econ.) 1964, LL.B. 1967, University of Pennsylvania. Member, Penn- sylvania Bar. 1 C. McCoaincK, EVIDENCE § 60 (1954). See generally Davis, Hearsay in Non- jury Cases, 83 HARv. L. REv. 1362 (1970); Stone, The Decline of Jury Trial and the Law of Evidence, 3 REs JUDICATAE 144 (1947) ; Note, Improper Evidence in Nonjury Trials: Basis for Reversal?, 79 HIv. L. REv. 407 (1965); Note, Exciu- sionary Rules of Evidence in Non-Jury Proceedings, 46 ILL.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 26 Issue 4 Symposium on Reform of the Article 5 Exclusionary Rule 5-15-1999 How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts Harold J. Krent Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Harold J. Krent How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts, 26 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 4 (1999) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol26/iss4/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts Harold J. Krent* The exclusionary rule remains one of the most controversial judicial doctrines of this era. When judges order dangerous criminals released based on seeming technicalities, the public's faith in the judiciary erodes. Moreover, police misconduct may be deterred in a variety of ways, one hopes, without exacting the heavy price of excluding highly probative evidence. And, from a compensation perspective, the exclusionary rule is perverse. Innocent victims of unreasonable searches and seizures generally recover nothing, while those committing the most heinous crimes recover the most-their liberty. At a minimum, sophisticated proposals such as the one presented in the Pepperdine Study' should afford all of us-whether judges, legislators, or academics-the occasion to reflect on whether the exclusionary rule should be maintained.2 Whatever its strengths and weaknesses-and there are both'-the Pepperdine * Professor and Associate Dean, Chicago-Kent College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Scope of Taint Under the Exclusionary Rule of the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
    [Vol.114 SCOPE OF TAINT UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION In the 1963 Term the United States Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions affecting the privilege against self-incrimination.1 In Malloy v. Hogan the Court held that "the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by the States.. " 2 On the same day the Supreme Court delivered a second opinion which was a logical consequence of the Malloy decision. In Murphy v. Waterfront Commn - the Court extended the protection of the fifth amend- ment 4 to those cases in which the privilege against self-incrimination was claimed because of the possibility of prosecution in a foreign jurisdiction. 5 Prior to Murphy the so-called "dual sovereignties" rule dictated that a witness in one jurisdiction could not claim his privilege with respect to a foreign crime because "the powers of the General Government, and of the State, although both exist and are exercised within the same territorial limits, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and in- dependently of each other, within their respective spheres.. ,, 6 In overturning this rule, the Murphy Court reasoned that it would defeat the policies of the privilege against self-incrimination to allow a witness who now has the privilege under both state and federal jurisdictions to be "'whipsawed into incriminating himself under both state and federal law,'" '7 a possibility made particularly acute by widespread interjurisdic- tional cooperation in law enforcement. Murphy therefore concluded that "the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects a state wit- ness against incrimination under federal as well as state law and a federal IMalloy v.
    [Show full text]